P.N. Ravindran, J.

1. The petitioners are the landlords in R.C.P. No. 1 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Mavelikkara, a petition filed by them for an order evicting the respondent herein from a residential building, under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short.

2. The petitioners had in the rent control petition averred that, the petition schedule house jointly belongs to them and that excluding two rooms on the southern side, the remaining portion of the house has been let out on rent to the respondent who is none other than the brother-in-law of the first petitioner and the brother of the second petitioner, that the initial entrustment was in the year 2003 for a period of 11 months, but having regard to the relationship between the parties no written agreement was entered into, that when the first petitioner who was employed abroad returned to his native place a demand was made to the respondent to execute a lease deed to continue to occupy the premises, that on such demand the respondent executed a lease deed in the year 2005 undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of 11 months, that the rent agreed upon is Rs. 1,000/- per month, that rent at that rate is due after May, 2012 and that the first petitioner, who has lost his employment abroad, bonafide needs the petition schedule building to start a business.

3. Upon receipt of notice, the respondent/tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement dated 11.7.2013. In paragraph 1 thereof, he denied the entrustment of the petition schedule building to him in 2003 and contended that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. He also denied and disputed the allegation that the petition schedule building other than two rooms on the southern side, was entrusted to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- in the year 2003. He further contended that the building is his family house, that he is residing therein ever since his childhood, that it is also his matrimonial home and that he is presently residing therein with his younger daughter. He had also contended that Ext. A12 rent deed dated 29.3.2012 produced along with the rent control petition is a fabricated document, concocted after fabricating his signature and disputed his liability to pay rent.

4. Before the rent control court, the first petitioner examined himself as PW1, the document writer who had prepared some of the documents produced by the landlords as PW2, one of the attesting witnesses to Exts. A5, A6 and A7 rent deeds as PW3 and the Secretary of Mavelikkara Municipality who produced Exts. X1 to X4 as PW4. The landlords also produced and marked Exts. A1 to A29. The tenant examined himself as DW1 and produced and marked Ext. B1. The rent control court considered the rival contentions and the materials on record and held that the denial of the landlords' title is not bonafide. The rent control court further held that the petition schedule building belongs absolutely to the petitioners and that the contention of the respondent that there is no landlord-tenant relationship is not tenable. The rent control court thereafter proceeded to consider whether the petitioners are entitled to an order of eviction under section 11(2)(b) of the Act and held, relying on Ext. A12 rent deed dated 29.3.2012 that the tenant who has denied his liability to pay rent and has not paid rent after May 2012, is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem from June, 2012 to March, 2013, viz. the month immediately preceding the month in which the rent control petition was filed. The rent control court also held that the bonafide need put forward is true and genuine. An order of eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act was accordingly passed on 31.7.2014.

5. Challenging the order of eviction passed by the rent control court, the respondent/tenant filed R.C.A. No. 3 of 20